Hi wikipedia.
Printable View
Hi wikipedia.
No, that just happens to be the case for most people ;) Of course one can agree with global warming and be an idiot too. In fact I think that's half the problem in convincing people about the real effects of man-made climate change - too often the loudest proponents are banal idiots who overdramatise everything. Hippies are the worst. God-damn hippies...
I saw a poster campaign at a university last year saying "Global Warming: The Real Truth". Below it had a very beautiful picture of a tiger in a forest, with a note saying how global warming was killing precious animals. Really fucking pissed me off - exactly the sort of bollocks that makes people disregard the real issues about climate change.
My opinion on the subject :
-1 I don't know
-2 I don't care.
What do you mean 'you don't care'? Don't you know that if you CARE, it
will make all the oil companies stop pumping oil? Don't you know that if
you complain loudly enough, cars will start running on water, like in that
youtube video? If only MORE PEOPLE WOULD CARE!!!
And? 10 chars
http://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy
some fun in between
This game is made of win.
I am deeply ashamed about stating my opinion on the internet.
Ok, I'm listening. What are the other resources?
Please keep in mind it's not just about energy. Oil is important for the production of stuff like rubber, plastics, fertilizers, pesticides and all sorts of chemicals. Besides, oil holds energy in a particular form. For example, you can't fly an airoplane on coal. Well, maybe you can if you first turn the coals to liquid, but you lose a lot of efficiency in that case.
Non-debatable? I'd love to be convinced that I'm completely wrong.
All right. How about this:
It is uncertain at what exact moment oil production will peak, but based on recent research, it seems quite likely that this will happen in the next five to ten years.
>>> But of course I'm only spreading propaganda,
>> and you should be ashamed
> I am deeply ashamed about stating my opinion on the internet.
I meant be ashamed of forgetting to use sarcasm marks...
> Ok, I'm listening. What are the other resources?
Of course I didn't hear about other resources from wiki, but it's just so easy to link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
" the world's largest deposits occur in two countries: Canada and Venezuela, each of which has oil sand reserves approximately equal to the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil."
and that is only one alternative. there are others that I'm too lazy to even wiki
You want to raise a debate about the huge environmental impact of oil sands now?
they're in canada and venez-something-or-other...
The Canadian oil sands are the cause of the most recent domestic terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.
> The Canadian oil sands are the cause of the most recent domestic terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.
The Canadian oil sands are also the cause of the US's current economical troubles.
The Canadian oil sands are also the cause of the flu season.
The Canadian oil sands are also the cause of inner-city gang activity.
etc...
That is a good point, I didn't know that the reserves expected from tar sands are this large. Oil extraction from tar sands is not a pretty sight if you like trees or living things in general, but let's stick to one subject at a time.
Environmental issues aside, I'm unsure tar sands can really prevent the economical crisis that peak oil theory predicts. Extracting oil from tar sands yields low net energy: you need to invest a lot of energy in the process, compared to the amount of energy you gain. This raises the next question: is it really viable to scale up the current production from these sources massively, as would be required when conventional production starts to decline seriously? Some experts think not. But others are more optimistic. Time will tell, I guess.
Not to mention that they kill my brimstone man attempts. :(
Well what do you expect to happen when you walk into a burning tower caked in oil sand?
Pro-tip: Do not coat yourself in extremely flammable substances when entering flame-filled structures. Unless you're wearing RDSM, of course.
> Extracting oil from tar sands yields low net energy:
...
> is it really viable to scale up the current production from these sources
Once upon a time, coal was just coal. Methane was the deadly bi-product gas that
results from coal being mined and mixed with air/water/otherstuffs. It was a hurdle
that had to be jumped in order to mine the valuable coal. Coal seams that were
close to underground water sources were especially 'hot', and therefore weren't
even considered sources of coal, as they would ~always~ be too deadly and
therefore expensive to mine.
Things are different now. Thanks to recent technologies, the methane is now more
valuable than the coal. Methane burns cleaner, has a higher (as you mention) net
energy, and in some ways is less expensive to mine (more like capture) than the
actual coal. These days, many new coal mines are actually being constructed, not
for the purpose of mining coal, but to intentionally create 'hot' mines to produce
as much methane as possible.
The reason I gush at length over this is because I fully expect a similar thing to
happen with 'oil sand'. The mining technology is currently underdeveloped because
nobody has a reason to develope it yet. Mostly, energy companies are the ones who
will develope the tech, and why should they right now? They would actually be
working against themselves, as their research would undermine the assets they
currently hold...
digging an old thread with a heaty discussion, because I stumbled opon this article You might be interested in:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/31/...ate-war-worse/
Heh, nice article. I completely agree with the main point, which is that google is not objective.
But the same problem applies to the whole topic of global warming, because there's always politics involved (nowadays, in Europe at least). In any case, everyone arguing about it argues either in order to stop the measures against global warming, or in order to motivate more measures against global warming. Of course there is some exact science about global warming, but most of what is said about global warming is as vague as social sciences to me.
... That one guy is acting like skepticism is a religion you belong to. There is no "skeptics" team. They'd never get around to agreeing they need to form one.
I think "scepticism" is the wrong term. The guy's a physicist, and when publishing physics results you have to bend over backwards to point out how you could be wrong. Other areas of science don't have the same rigour in publishing, and lead to more sensationalist and less trustworthy articles. These articles can be eventually disproved, but they muddy the water.
The new study does solidify the science of global warming quite significantly. But it was something that was already very well accepted in scientific circles. I mean even NASA studies showed the same thing. If you wanna deny NASA results then join the ranks of weirdos that doubt the moon landings.
There are three schools of thought upon reading this:
> One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the conservative tea party movement. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.
Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.
1. See, this proves WE were right all along!
2. Bah, it only says urban 'hot spots' weren't scewing the tests and weather stations weren't 'unreliable'.
I wasn't debating those points anyway! 1.6 degree F temperature rise? Wonder how the Earth survived all
the previous rises without all these scientists.
3. I wonder what effect that $600,000.00 would have had if it had gone to planting some trees instead
of... yet another climate study? -_-
Yeah, I'm in the 3 catagory.
It is so difficult to wade through the ocean of stupidity that is produced by the wacko greenies. They promote
windmills, solar, ethanol (*jeez*), carbon capture, so many other ignorant 'viable solutions' to our climate
problems, one tends to discount every idea out of their heads as worthless. There are actually things that
make sense though, here is a sight that seems to be on the right track. I may actually even build one of these
decomposers, as I have the land...
http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalzb.html
Don't trust science written in Comic Sans, or that is ridiculously pro-American. The pseudo-science on that page is one of the craziest I've ever read.
I've come to a firm belief that global warming is totally real! After all, the on-going fall season has been the warmest in 50 years...here, in Finland.. ermm.. yes. This must mean something!!1
> Don't trust science written in Comic Sans,
That site has an option along the top of every page, offering
an assortment of fonts to the viewer, an option almost all
other sites lack.
> or that is ridiculously pro-American.
He was pro-American? I didn't notice, but yeah, I can see how
that would disqualify someone from knowing what they are talking
about.
> The pseudo-science on that page is one of the craziest I've ever read.
I've not studied physics beyond what was mandatory, but it
seemed to be this project made logical sense. I did a bit of
searching around and did find demonstrations of this type of
system actually working (and working financially) in real
world applications, which is more than I can say for solar
or wind (well, beyond solar calculators).
What part were you annoyed at particularly. The part where it
states that it takes more energy to create ethanol than can
be extracted from it? From what I saw, the guy was an eco
enthusiast of the highest magnitude, but wasn't willing to
ignore facts just to please other eco enthusiasts. Is that
all it takes to be branded a psuedo scientist these days?
> the on-going fall season has been the warmest in 50 years...here, in Finland.. ermm.. yes. This must mean something!!1
Doh, this again. "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes."
If you search this thread, you will find a point where someone else also
tells me "this winter was the warmest on record. Everything is ALWAYS
'the warmest on record' -_- Meanwhile, I'm freezing my lili-white hillbilly
butt off here in KY. "It's just getting warmer everywhere... except
where you live!" I have also been told on this forum, upon mentioning
how clean the KY air is, how bad air polution is 'everywhere except where
you live". Funny enough KY is a state that produces > 95% of its electricity
from coal, but coincidentally has > 95% of its surface area covered in
trees. But I'm sure those things are unrelated. We already know that trees
are a useless, albedo producing plague upon the land. It would make ever
so much more sense to do the scientific and environmentally friendly
thing: cut down all those nasty, albedo producing trees and use the money
for the REAL solution to all our problems... another climate study.
I just got my electric bill today, 11-03-11, for the electricity I used
in October. It's actually still laying here. It shows that I consumed
+10% more electricity than last year (524 Kw/h for a 3 bedroom house,
at $0.085/h) for the same period, despite using all the exact same
appliances as last year. I have already talked to one person earlier
today who said the same thing happened for them. Same appliances, same
rates, just increased Kw/h used. It is just that stinking cold. It got
so cold here in late October, I worried about my pipes freezing. That
was in October! I'd bet that if other people would actually compare
the Kw/h used durring the winter months from year to year, as I do,
they would notice the same thing is happening for them. This is despite
the fact that most houses are becoming more well insulated, as more
people realize that is something that ACTUALLY WORKS.
As an especially irritating side note, the same bill shows a government
forced 'environmental surcharge' of $0.011 onto every Kw/h I used. How
much of this money do you suppose goes toward planting trees? I doubt
any, at least here in KY, as that would be rather like planting sand in
a desert. How much goes toward distributing insulation? I doubt any, as
there are existing governmental programs that already do that, and are
funded through income and sales taxes. How much will go toward
encouraging the use of coal/oil/natural gas as residential heating
sources as opposed to electricity (which is extremely wasteful due to
the multiple conversions and heavy transmittal losses it undergoes). I
doubt any, as that is sooo obviously just pro-American psuedo science.